Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: the transaction type taxonomy, row-level fields (netAmount, agreedRate, brokerageNumber), itemized expenses, and bulk execution via investment_ids. It does not mention pagination behavior or auth requirements, but the added detail is meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly written in three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then actionable usage guidance, then bulk support. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing key return fields and transaction types. It covers the required workflow (after list_investments) and bulk variant. Minor omissions include pagination details and explicit fallback/alternative tools, but overall the description is sufficient for a list-type tool with strong annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains investment_id (obtain from openfinance_list_investments) and investment_ids (bulk support), which are the most important parameters. However, it does not clarify page/page_size semantics or the relationship between investment_id and investment_ids beyond the bulk mention, which would have been valuable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns movement history for a specific investment position, enumerates supported transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER), and explicitly distinguishes it from related list tools by pointing to openfinance_list_investments. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it after openfinance_list_investments to obtain investment_id, providing clear sequencing context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative non-investment list tools, but the investment-specific scope makes the intended usage evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.